Not sure if the MWC adding Boise St. at this time is a wise move or not.

I think there are 3 criteria the BCS uses to statistically determine "who is worthy" of a BCS AQ.One relates to final ranking of member schools (and how many were in top 25) over the past so many years. Clearly Boise St. would help in this regard.MWC could argue that Boise St.'s record should be grandfathered going back to at least teh last several years in the WAC, citing that the BCS offered this treatment to the Big East, for Louisville, Cincinnati and USF (as they remained members of C-USA, before officially joining the Big East.

HOWEVER, the current set-up seems to require a non-BCS-AQ conference school to "run the table" as Utah did in 2004 and 2008 (Boise St. in 2006, Hawai'i in 2007) to gain access to a BCS Bowl. By including Boise St. in the MWC, do they run the risk of a 10-1 Boise St. team knocking off a 11-0 Utah team (or vice versa) so that they both finish 11-1 and out of the running ? By requiring each MWC school to annually play a new MWC member school (that is really tough) every year, they would seem to lower the chance of any one "running the table".

By taking Boise St. the MWC is hoping it can get more respect and be like the Big East where the tougher schedule would allow for a 11-1 school from the MWC to get in. Then maybe over the years surpass the BE, or at least get an autobid.

I hear you. That would be the logic in going to 10 (by adding a very strong team).

However, the BCS has played hardball with the other 5 conferences, and the MWC is currently guaranteed NOTHING if it isn't specifically written into the BCS agreement.

They currently ARE guaranteed that if they produce the ONLY undefeated team in non-BCS-AQ world, then that team will get into one of the 5 bowl games.

Multiple 11-1 teams may generate a lot of sympathy with the public, but when you're dealing with the exclusionary tactics of the BCS, sympathy + four bucks might only get you a Latte at Starbucks. It's hardly fair, but the BCS committee has made it abundantly clear that they are focused on enriching themselves, and not focused on issues of "fairness".

So although Boise St. is certainly an attractive candidate, the 9 MWC members might be better served not to add them until after some sort of playoff system (with at-large berths and an unbiased selection procedure) is in place (no telling when that is going to happen).

If the BCS says "you add BSU and you get an auto-bid" then it makes sense to expand.

But it's a bad precedent, to cater to the BCS. I'd rather this thing go through congress and get fixed. Because while a BSU addition to the MWC might make sense...the Big East should also be given an ultimatum. They are arguably worse than the MWC but get a bid.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum